Understanding nurse practitioner scope of practice: Regulatory, practice, and employment perspectives now and for the future.

The nurse practitioner (NP) role has existed for 50 years. During the past 10 years, a national effort to use NPs to the full extent of their education based on the 2008 Consensus Model for Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Regulation and the 2010 Institute of Medicine Report on the Future of Nursing continues to result in variable scopes of practice (SOP) between states. Subsequently, NPs have a lack of clarity on SOP because it relates to population foci and practice setting. Review and analysis of state-based statutes and rules with the current literature focused on NP SOP, including documents by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, was conducted. Clarification and understanding of SOP is essential for safe practice and optimum access to care. Inconsistent SOP regulation continues to exist between states, and NPs can be in employment situations that place them in a position to possibly breech their SOP. Although practice is not setting specific, NP licensure is based on NP education and certification that is competency based within population foci, and credentialing by employers should align with these parameters. Continuing to work toward a more common NP SOP between states and achievement of full practice authority means periodic reassessment of NP education and practice models. Practice mobility is essential for continued advancement of the NP profession and increased access to care by the public.

Evaluating models of healthcare delivery using the Model of Care Evaluation Tool (MCET).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Our aim was to provide the outcome of a structured Model of Care (MoC) Evaluation Tool (MCET), developed by an FAANP Best-practices Workgroup, that can be used to guide the evaluation of existing MoCs being considered for use in clinical practice. Multiple MoCs are available, but deciding which model of health care delivery to use can be confusing. This five-component tool provides a structured assessment approach to model selection and has universal application. METHODS: A literature review using CINAHL, PubMed, Ovid, and EBSCO was conducted. CONCLUSIONS: The MCET evaluation process includes five sequential components with a feedback loop from component 5 back to component 3 for reevaluation of any refinements. The components are as follows: (1) Background, (2) Selection of an MoC, (3) Implementation, (4) Evaluation, and (5) Sustainability and Future Refinement. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This practical resource considers an evidence-based approach to use in determining the best model to implement based on need, stakeholder considerations, and feasibility.